MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 7d) to User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 19. |
Unscintillating (talk | contribs) →Deja vu at WT:V, and current business: new section |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0484 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0484 --> |
||
== ''Deja vu'' at WT:V, and current business == |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=457888835&oldid=457885681 Here] is the edit in which SV reverts your close, with the valid point that the close was seven days early, and with the escalatory points, "In addition, it's not clear to me what the consensus is; not clear that the RfC was a proper wiki-wide one (I was hoping for something not on this page), and it would be appreciated if more than one (completely uninvolved) admin would agree to interpret the consensus." By the next day, you had turned in your admin bit. SV's tactics soon included renaming the RfC and spamming unrelated discussion groups, supported by Viriditas. As I soon said, "Instead of participation and collaboration, SV's MO, for changes to the lede of WP:V, is to wait until consensus has been established before becoming centrally involved, and such involvement is never with the goal of building consensus. The current episode is the third such episode in less than a year. <small>Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)</small>". |
|||
I think your decision today to return your bit until at least May was correct. I don't actually know why you think you need to do an RfA. |
|||
Sarek, I am still looking for your analysis as requested [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=537793673&oldid=537765476 here]. Thank you, [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 03:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:43, 23 March 2013
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Please add new comments in . Thanks. SarekOfVulcan |
---|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Jeez... II
Sorry, but the heading applies , too! Could I persuade you to peruse the rather rude editor's comment and give him a gentle reminder to AGF and be civil? His post is more than a little over the top. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Tea Party movement arbitration case opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
re: comment
If I simply add English text to it (while keeping the Japanese present), would that arguably be enough? (>.>;;) (i.e, to this: ハロー☆リンク-Hello Link-) ハロー☆リンク 19:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that should do nicely. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit wars
Regarding your notice of suspected edit war, I'm trying to get just one other person to discuss the matter on the talk page first before simply deleting text, which would be the better option before any mediation or dispute resolution. Only time will tell if consensus can be reached by the community. He has now taken the issue up in the talk page so we are discussing it there Wombat24 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, when BLP issues are in play, deleting and then discussing is usually the better course of action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- In the category of "Put down the stick, and back away from the horse in rigor mortis" Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Threat_from_Administrator Fladrif (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
sound of music
Please explain why you removed the addition on the narrative theme? Jw2 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
- Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
- For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
- SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
- The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.
For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @277 · 05:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Discuss this
- In light of this, I've procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System — we can't have an AFD in which the nominator isn't allowed to comment. My opinions of what should be done with the article didn't play into this decision. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- As you perhaps noticed, you weren't the first person to object to my action. I've accordingly reopened it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System; I've copy/pasted everyone's comments except yours and Doncram's. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- In light of this, I've procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System — we can't have an AFD in which the nominator isn't allowed to comment. My opinions of what should be done with the article didn't play into this decision. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Resigning the bit
I haven't been much of a fan of you and your style, but you have earned my admiration through your resignation. It is a breath of fresh air from the 'job for life' and 'I'll resign over my dead body' mentality that is still regrettably quite prevalent amongst other admins. Hope you still enjoy a productive life without the mop, and all the best for the future. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- *bows respectfully* Thank you, sir. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This saddens me, Sarek. You were always one of the good guys -- helpful, accessible and firm but fair. --Drmargi (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sarek, good job. I'm always pleased when I see things like this. However, can I recommed you choose to either do your reconfirmation RfA now or in May? Reconfirmation RfAs are quite indulgent and two in two months would be a poor idea. WormTT(talk) 08:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I had no intention of doing it now -- I was always going to wait until May, as that would be two years since the previous RFA. It was just my original plan to resign immediately before the new RFA, instead of taking a couple of months off.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I support now. Why wait. I would certainly not oppose it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It's quite one thing for ArbComm to slap your wrist and say "bad boy"; it's quite another for any individual Arbs to call for the bit to be removed based on the Doncram situation. I wasn't 100% convinced of the "poison" that was ArbComm until now. Wow. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Speechless... (almost)... I've already bookmarked this. You still are one of the good guys. 7 15:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, folks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
just sayin
sorry to see this. You're a good guy. I appreciate what you've done, what you do, and what I hope you'll continue to do. — Ched : ? 04:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
- News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee
- WikiProject report: Making music
- Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm
- Arbitration report: Richard case closes
- Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Deja vu at WT:V, and current business
Here is the edit in which SV reverts your close, with the valid point that the close was seven days early, and with the escalatory points, "In addition, it's not clear to me what the consensus is; not clear that the RfC was a proper wiki-wide one (I was hoping for something not on this page), and it would be appreciated if more than one (completely uninvolved) admin would agree to interpret the consensus." By the next day, you had turned in your admin bit. SV's tactics soon included renaming the RfC and spamming unrelated discussion groups, supported by Viriditas. As I soon said, "Instead of participation and collaboration, SV's MO, for changes to the lede of WP:V, is to wait until consensus has been established before becoming centrally involved, and such involvement is never with the goal of building consensus. The current episode is the third such episode in less than a year. Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)".
I think your decision today to return your bit until at least May was correct. I don't actually know why you think you need to do an RfA.
Sarek, I am still looking for your analysis as requested here. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)